User talk:Sana Jisushi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Precure 5 episode summaires
I believe that the episode summaries should not be so vaguely short, and that they should be moved to a separate page if you think it's too big for the main article. What do you think? Justicebullet 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that "vaguely short" is the point of an episode summary on the page. A seperate page or an article for each episode would be good if you want an age and a half of speaking, but vaguely short, to me, is a good thing. Sana Jisushi 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, anyways, about the fansub mention of "effervescing" — I personally think you should reword that statement so as not to mention any "fansubness" because like I said, we're not trying to focus on what the fansub says, but the series itself. It'd good you want to point this out, but maybe a restatement would do.
- Out of random, I found this in the history page: "Two, this user seems to have a chronic deletion problem." Well, to be cautious, if you were referring to me, you should have at least attempted to discuss this manner on my talk page instead of deliberately pointing fingers. Although I am not saying you are saying that you're talking about me, I do find that pretty rude, whoever it is you're talking about. Justicebullet 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
Is there a specific guideline on whether spoilers should appear in the characters' section of an article? I'm sure there are articles on both sides of the argument, so I suppose it's not really black and white. Anyway, on the issue of Alicia Testarossa, the matter was discussed briefly on the talk page. As I have stated there, EmperorBrandon makes a good point in that Alicia is not really that notable of a character. Considering that no one else has a page, hers should probably be removed since it gives a rather skewed and awkward feel to the article. If you are very keen on keeping it spoiler-free (that seems to be the case, given your conservative edits), please raise the issue in the talk page, I don't really mind personally, but I think the Alicia article really needs to go...well, unless every other major/minor character is going to get their own page with a decent amount of information added or something. --Remy Suen 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Nicole Whittaker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicole Whittaker.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Nicole-screen.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicole-screen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nicole-screen.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicole-screen.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? It is used... Nicole Whittaker has it. Sana Jisushi 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- You will find if you open the noted file about that the extention is .JPG and the image used on the Nicole Whittaker page is one with an extention .jpg. In this case the capitalization makes a difference and the file is actually uploaded twice. The .JPG is up for deletion, not the .jpg which is in use.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glad you like my Userbox
have not gotten any word about fair-use from and admin. so i think they are safe. hope you enjoy it.Phoenix741 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Meganekko
Hello! Recently yuou asked why I removed the information on this supposed "megane-kun" from the [[[meganekko]]page. Well in short, it didn't belong there. Where you put the information really threw off the flow of the page. Meganekko is a phenomenon in anime and manga that has existed for years. They follow a distict pattern and are a visible character arechetype. From what I can tell, "megane-kun" is jsut something fan-created by girls who think guys with glasses are "cute". If you wanted to added megankun, then the bottom of the page fwould have been a better place for it, or even perhaps a new page entierly. I was only trying to keep the flow of the page consistent. it has nothing to do with sexism, as you suggested, although I do question the what thinking a guy with glasses is cute has to do with meganekko. So in closing, I removed it because I felt it was not nessicarry and did not fit the page, not because "the internet is for MEN" If you have any questuions, feel free to ask me (Animedude 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
